Messages in this thread | | | From | "Tom Leete" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Ansification of include/linux/*.h | Date | Thu, 8 Jul 1999 00:52:22 -0400 |
| |
-----Original Message----- From: Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de> >tleete@access.mountain.net (Tom Leete) writes: > >> Hi, >> >> Here's a first patch. The only thing it does besides replacing "inline" >> with "__inline__" is to fill in the missing statements which set alight >> the "linux headers and C++" flamefest. > >This looks useless. The moving out of ISO C namespace doesn't help, because
It is for user-space developers who include headers for the ksyms prototypes. It works to permit them to use gcc -ansi and -pedantic if they wish. I recommend that for producing maintainable and portable code.
$ info gcc; for reasons to use __inline__. I didn't invent that macro, you know. The majority of kernel headers used it to start with.
>it would need to be reserved for C++ compatibility anyways. >Near all interesting (=optimizing) C compilers know about inline, and if >not it can be easily #define'd out. Also the next revision of the C >standard has inline.
Who's going to put the revisions into gcc-2.7.2?
> >What they usually don't deal with is gcc's "extern inline", so >migrating from "extern inline" to "static inline". The reasoning behind
Yes, I think that may need to be handled, perhaps by something like:
#ifdef _GNUC_ extern #endif
I'm open to suggestions on that.
>the extern thing seems to be to let ld catch non inlined copies. A much >better way to archieve this IMHO is -Winline (if you can stand the few >warnings for the non-fixable cases - which should be few because with >extern inline they didn't even compile) > >I think the kernel header ANSIfication is a doomed project though, because >how do you do a efficient spinlock without inline assembly (and don't say >now "move it out of line")? In 2.2+ you cannot do much without spinlocks. >In 2.0 the same applies e.g. to cli/sti >
Who said anything about altering kernel mechanisms for this?
I think you haven't followed the discussion that produced these patches. I would have turned off the religious war too, if I hadn't got involved as an innocent agnostic.
> >-Andi
Tom
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |